Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:41:41.504Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Control of Honey Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa) with 3,6-Dichloropicolinic Acid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

P. W. Jacoby
Affiliation:
Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Vernon, TX 76384
C. H. Meadors
Affiliation:
Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Vernon, TX 76384
M. A. Foster
Affiliation:
Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Vernon, TX 76384

Abstract

The herbicide 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid was more effective than 2,4,5-T [(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid] or equal-ratio combinations of 2,4,5-T with picloram (4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid) or dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid) when aerially applied as broadcast sprays for control of honey mesquite [Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) DC. var. glandulosa (Torr.) Cockerell]. Applied at 0.56 kg/ha, 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid controlled 60 and 68% of the honey mesquite at two locations; whereas, the mixture of 2,4,5-T and picloram controlled only 21 and 30% of the honey mesquite at the same rate of application. The herbicide 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid was equally effective when applied alone or in 1:1 mixtures with 2,4,5-T, picloram, or triclopyr {[(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy] acetic acid} at equivalent rates. Applying 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid at 1.12 kg/ha resulted in an absolute increase in mortality of 26% over the 0.56-kg/ha rate.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Bovey, R. W. and Mayeux, H. S. Jr. 1980. Effectiveness and distribution of 2,4,5-T, triclopyr, picloram, and 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid in honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa). Weed Sci. 28:666670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Fisher, C. E., Wiedemann, H. T., Walter, J. P., Meadors, C. H., Brock, J. H., and Cross, B. T. 1972. Brush control research on rangeland. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. MP-1043. 18 pp.Google Scholar
3. Haagsma, T. 1975. Dowco 290 herbicide – a coming new selective herbicide. Down Earth 30(4):12.Google Scholar
4. Keys, C. H. 1975. Evaluation of Dowco 290 for the control of annual and perennial weeds. Down Earth 31(1):17.Google Scholar
5. Koos, W. M., Williams, J. C., and Dixon, M. L. 1962. Soil survey of Wilbarger County, Texas. U.S. Dep. Agric. Soil Cons. Serv. 64 pp.Google Scholar
6. Scifres, C. J., Bovey, R. W., Fisher, C. E., and Baur, J. R. 1973. Chemical control of mesquite. Pages 2432 in Mesquite. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Monog. 1.Google Scholar
7. Smith, A. N. and Rechenthin, C. A. 1964. Grassland restoration – the Texas brush problem. U.S. Dep. Agric. Soil Cons. Serv., Temple, Texas. 17 pp.Google Scholar
8. Watson, L. 1978. Soil survey of Ector and Crane Counties, Texas. U.S. Dep. Agric. Soil Cons. Serv. 89 pp.Google Scholar